Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 2, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the juvenile court that a middle school student violated the California Penal Code  “by willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a weapons search.” The incident arose out of a comment made by the student to the school police officer, who was “wearing a full police uniform with a badge and gun.”  “(The student) looked at the liaison officer’s gun on her hip, then remarked, ‘I have a Glock, too.’”  The officer, along with school administrators and staff, believed that they “had a duty to search him to make sure he was not armed and was not a threat to the other students.”  Their attempts to search the student were frustrated at every turn.  The student left the building, constantly stating his belief that his rights permitted him to decline the search (“You’re not searching me,”… “I’m not letting you search me because you have no probable cause,”… “It’s the law for you guys to have probable cause, but you don’t have fucking probable cause.”).  After law enforcement backup arrived, the student returned “to the principal’s office where he and his belongings were searched. (The student) was then arrested and booked into juvenile hall.”  The appellate court affirmed the findings of the lower court upon several clearly established laws regarding resistance to lawful orders by police officers and search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  First, as to resistance, the conduct of the student fit well inside the “common violations of the statute which) include flight, physical resistance, running, hiding, and other forcible interference with an officer’s activities.”  Second, the appellate court applied the rule of New Jersey v. TLO,  under which “a ‘school official’ may search a student’s person and personal effects based on a reasonable suspicion—requiring articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts—that the search will disclose evidence that the student is violating or has violated the law or school rules.”  Third, applied the California policy that the involvement of the police officer did not trigger the more rigorous standard of probable cause because “for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, ‘school officials’ include police officers who are assigned to public schools as school resource or school liaison officers.”  The appellate court explained that “due to the importance of providing students and staff with a safe learning environment, the ability to search a student should not hinge on whether the school district or the city employs the school security officer. The consequence of such a rule would force school districts to employ private security guards rather than certified police officers, who may have superior training, which would hardly enhance protection of the students’ Fourth Amendment rights.”  In re N.S.

— In Indiana, “the office of Indiana Gov. Mike Braun announced that an anonymous tip line will soon be available for all K-12 schools throughout the state of Indiana.  According to a news release from Braun’s office, the school safety-related tip line will offer 24/7/365 monitoring at no cost to schools.”

— In Texas, officials in the Willis ISD are deploying “15 new weapons screeners” after weapons were discovered at a high school.  The 15 Xtract One screening units will require students to walk through the device at a “normal pace with backpacks unless a threat is flagged.”  “The decision follows a string of safety concerns at Willis High School since August.”

— In Michigan, K-12 schools are now required to have threat assessment teams “to assess and manage students who may pose a threat of violence.”  Under the law, the team must include “a school administrator, mental health professional and law enforcement official tasked with probing reports of alarming behavior in a school community and identifying credible threats.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 25, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court ruled that a student alleging “repeated verbal harassment and physical assaults” by other students “during his time as a student” could “file an amended complaint” to proceed with his lawsuit.  The court dismissed the lawsuit “with leave to amend,”  after recommending to the student how best to revise his complaint.  The recommendations pertained to the “Title IX deliberate indifference, Section 504, Section 1983 failure to protect, and Monell claims against the School District.”  The student argued that he “repeatedly reported his concerns to school personnel but alleges that (school officials) failed to take effective correction action to protect him from continued harm.”  The court provided a blueprint for filing a successful claim.  As to Title IX deliberate indifference, the court states that “for a school district to be held liable for a claim of student-on-student sexual harassment under Title IX, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant receives federal funds; (2) sexual harassment occurred; (3) the harassment occurred under circumstances wherein the recipient exercised substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurred, (4) the funding recipient had ‘actual knowledge’ of the harassment; (5) the funding recipient was ‘deliberately indifferent’ to the harassment; and (6) the harassment was ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to have deprived the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.”  Going further with its Title IX advice to the student, the court noted that because “Title IX applies to institutions and programs that receive federal funds, it does not authorize suits against school officials, teachers, and other individuals.”  As to Section 504, the court stated that after the student establishes that he had a disability, that he then  “must also show intentional discrimination under a deliberate indifference standard if he seeks compensatory damages (in one of two ways) … First, by alleging facts suggesting that the existing policies caused a failure to adequately respond to a pattern of past occurrences of injuries like the plaintiffs, or, Second, by alleging facts indicating that she could prove that the risk of cognizable harm was so great and so obvious that the risk and the failure to respond will alone support finding deliberate indifference.”  As to the Section 1983 Failure to Protect Claim, the court advised the student that he must allege “affirmative acts by the Defendants or school administrators (that) created a danger to him or rendered him more vulnerable to danger than if they had not acted at all.”  As to the Monell claim, the court explained that the student “must allege that the defendant’s policies or customs caused the alleged constitutional violation (of his rights).”  The student must specify the constitutional right and  “specify what exactly that custom or policy was” to satisfy the pleading standard.”  Therefore, the court agreed to “permit (the student) to file an amended complaint.”  Harshaw v. School District of Philadelphia

— In Texas, officials in the Willis, Texas ISD are increasing campus security by installing “metal detectors, after multiple firearm-related incidents in the past year.”

— In Pennsylvania, “the Harrisburg School Board is asking administrators to provide an overall security plan for the district,” before agreeing to give “authority to arrest and detain students for criminal misconduct in school buildings…to the district’s current director of safety and security, a district police officer.”

— Nationally, “U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Chris Murphy have re-introduced the Protecting Our Students in Schools Act to ban corporal punishment in federally funded schools and provide grants for safer learning environments.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 11, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Utah, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a local prosecutor to charge a student for assaulting a teacher and a fellow student after the assailant had accepted juvenile probation and substantially complied with the probation conditions.  The student “was required to perform five hours of community service and pay restitution.”  She “promptly completed her community service hours, but restitution was scheduled to remain under advisement.”  Then “the State filed a delinquency petition against (the student) alleging three felony offenses for the same fight: aggravated assault on the teacher resulting in substantial bodily injury with a group enhancement (a first-degree felony if committed by an adult); assault on the student resulting in substantial bodily injury with a group enhancement (a third-degree felony if committed by an adult); and riot with injury (a third-degree felony if committed by an adult).”  The student sought to reverse the decision of the local prosecutor, filing “a motion to dismiss the petition.”  The student argued that the prosecutor was “barred from filing a petition against her after she had accepted and substantially complied with the nonjudicial adjustment agreement.”  The juvenile court denied the motion, agreeing with the prosecutor that under Utah law the student was “not eligible for a nonjudicial adjustment for felony offenses and that nothing prohibited the prosecutor from filing a petition to correct an unauthorized nonjudicial adjustment.”  The Supreme Court affirmed.  Its affirmance summarizes Utah law that “creates a process for referring cases to juvenile courts and determining minors’ eligibility for a nonjudicial adjustment that involves specific procedures, timelines, and criteria.”  Under the state policy a prosecutor may “offer a nonjudicial adjustment so long as the referral does not involve a disqualifying offense…Disqualifying offenses include any felony offense alleged to have occurred when the minor was 12 years old or older…If the referral involves such an offense, a juvenile probation officer may not offer a minor a nonjudicial adjustment.”  Therefore, “a juvenile probation officer has no authority to offer a minor a nonjudicial adjustment when the referral involves an offense that is a felony offense.”  State in interest of J.M.

— In Indiana, “public schools in Hammond, Indiana, have banned metal water bottles in the classroom.  School City of Hammond officials said water bottles like the ones made by Yeti or Stanley can potentially be used as weapons. Officials didn’t point to a specific incident, and said they are merely banning the bottles as a precaution.”

— In North Carolina, the Alamance-Burlington School System is working with artificial intelligence to determine whether AI “could help spot potential safety threats before someone has to go back and review security camera footage.” The prototype “is designed to look for visible weapons, smoke or fire, potential perimeter breaches, and even when someone falls and gets hurt.”

— Nationally, “Microsoft and the American Federation of Teachers have made a deal regarding safety and privacy when artificial intelligence is used in school.”  In the provisions of the agreement there are “10 legal enforceable protections with one of them being Microsoft can’t use teachers’ or students’ data to improve an AI model.”  The provisions also contain a safety and security exception.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 8, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the adjudication of a student who appealed on the grounds that his speech was not a “true threat” and therefore was protected under the First Amendment.  The student “was serving an in-school suspension after a teacher, Ms. P., discovered a nicotine “vape” in his possession that morning.  That afternoon, while checking on (the student) and assisting him with his work, Ms. P. observed multiple notes, one of which included the phrase “hit list” and identified multiple first names.”  After an investigation with law enforcement, the following language was taken seriously:

“Statements such as “Don’t let the cops see this,” “Don’t open unless you got permission,” “Me Dom kill trap goal, we got guns knifs,” “plan to drop trap and spades on spring break when it’s sumer,” “Plan get ride to Sheboygan wi gun and kick door in and start a fight then pull gun out and shoot!!![,]” “7spade ido not know wtf to do with them bro but we need more guns me you [two individuals] everyone in the car[,]” and “iilegle writing don’t let no teachers or cops or opps see this if you do you’re a new opp!!”

The student later claimed that “he was bored with being stuck in school suspension all day so he decided to create a fake plan.”  The student was adjudicated for  “making terrorist threats contrary to [state law].”  On appeal, the student continued to argue that school officials “failed to identify any conduct that would rise to the level of a “true threat.”  The student also stressed that “there was no showing, as required under Counterman v. Colorado, that he had “consciously disregard[ed] the substantial and unjustifiable risk that the threat would cause harm to another.””

The appellate court affirmed the adjudication, agreeing with the trial court that

“(t)he documents are extremely concerning. It’s a hit list with names of students — a lot of it’s difficult to — for the Court to understand. I didn’t know — I see now it says, “6roses” — we now know is a park. So some of it — it’s unclear, but I think any reasonable person would see this as very threatening and scary… These are things that a reasonable person would be very concerned about. Very unsure exactly why he picked the juveniles that are on the list, but it doesn’t matter; it just matters that these were threats. This was meant for someone; the teacher saw that, reported it to the principal and this is what we have. So the Court believes the State has met its burden, and the three elements have been met”, e.g., 1.The student threatened to cause the death of or bodily harm to any person or to damage any person’s property; 2. The student created an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing a result; and 3. The student was aware of that risk. In the interest of I.T.S.

— In North Carolina, an investigation of school building safety in Wake County “reveal hundreds of violations, some taking years to fix.”  The focus of the report was whether the schools were “up to state fire code.”

— In West Virginia, school safety mapping requirements are now in effect.  Under West Virginia Code 18-9F-10a, “county school systems must create standardized mapping data for schools that can be shared with law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical services.”

— In Virginia, teachers in Fairfax County are protesting “a requirement from the school says that all teachers have to pitch in with weapons detection duty. In other words, they have to help man the metal detectors by the front door.”  The teachers union says that, “(t)hey didn’t enter teaching to be on the front lines of weapons detection.”  One teacher “refused the weapons detection duty last year because he didn’t feel safe, and the school then reprimanded him.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 31, 2026

by  • 

— In Iowa, the Court of Appeals of Iowa, reversed an assault case brought by a student because the lower court “erred in instructing the jury on standard of care.”  The case arose when ongoing verbal harassment against a student while in middle school and high school “turn physical.”  “While (the student) sat in language arts class, she claims (the assaulting student) began to touch her—at first by putting his hand on her thigh, then by putting his hand in the holes of her ripped jeans, and inside her waist band. And ultimately, (the assaulting student) allegedly digitally penetrated (her). According to (the victim), this continued daily for some time.”  The student alleged that the school district was negligent “for failing to prevent the assault and harassment.”  At trial, the court gave the following instruction to the jury:  “Negligence means failure to use ordinary care… Ordinary care is the care which a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances…  Negligence is doing something a reasonably careful person would not do under similar circumstances, or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do under similar circumstances.”  The appellate court reversed the result of the case, remanding the dispute for a new trial based upon the proper standard of care: “School districts have a duty of reasonable care in providing for the safety of students from the harmful actions of fellow students, a teacher, or other third persons… the nature of the duty the school owed to the student (is) a duty of care arising out of the school’s in loco parentis status… and requires the school district to exercise the same standard of care toward the children that a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances.”  Applied to the facts of this case, the appellate court held that “the instruction the jury received was a material misstatement of the law, so we conclude reversal is required.”  Safris v. Urbandale Community School District

— In California, officials in the Savanna School District are implementing “the InformaCast Wearable Alert Badge system across its four schools, providing staff members with a discreet way to request assistance during emergencies while helping school administrators and emergency responders respond more quickly.”  School officials state that “the device is worn by staff members during the school day…staff can activate an emergency alert by pressing a button on the badge, allowing administrators and emergency responders to quickly begin coordinating a response.”

— In Kentucky, students in Hardin County students “will no longer be allowed to bring metal or glass water bottles onto school campuses or buses.”  Officials state that they “reached this decision after reviewing growing safety and operational concerns.”

— In Colorado, schools are being retrofitted to include “a secure vestibule.”  School officials believe that “it’s a critical step to keep schools safe.”  It “allows the front office to control who’s coming in and have a little bit more surety that that the person has good intentions to be in the building.”  It includes “ballistic-rated wall board… glazed ballistic-rated glazing (windows)…(and) film that’s on the exterior doors that is also rated for ballistics.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 30, 2026

by  • 

— In Illinois, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed and validated the decision of school officials to limit a parent’s access to campus “at his child’s school.”  The case arose when the parent “filed two applications to be placed on the District’s “Approved Volunteer List” so that he could be a chaperone for his child’s school events.”  The school has a policy that “categorically bans applicants with criminal histories from serving as school volunteers, regardless of the specific circumstances surrounding the underlying convictions.”  The lower court held that the parent did not have a right “in volunteering for school activities.”  It further held that “the District’s policy of excluding applicants with criminal histories from volunteering was supported by a rational basis—that is, ensuring the safety of its students.”  On appeal, the ruling was affirmed because “although parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children… there is no fundamental right for parents to be playground monitors or to attend school functions, and schools have valid interests in limiting the parental presence.”  The appellate court emphasized that the school policy was “rationally related to its legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its students.”  Henson v. Dwight Common School District No. 232.

NOTE: The Court of Appeals did not formally publish this opinion under Fed. R. P. 32.1.  This rule simply says that “If a party cites a federal judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written disposition that is not available in a publicly accessible electronic database, the party must file and serve a copy of that opinion, order, judgment, or disposition with the brief or other paper in which it is cited.”

— In Colorado, the Alyssa’s Youth Concussion and Mental Health Protection Act “expands the training youth coaches must receive on recognizing concussions to include more information on the mental health of young athletes. If an athlete suffers a concussion, the law requires coaches to explain to their parents or guardians what changes in their mental health might happen as a result, including mood swings, irritability, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or suicidal ideation.”

— In Congress, the House of Representatives has introduced “the Seizure Safe Schools Act, legislation to promote seizure safety and ensure that elementary and secondary schools can safely care for students with seizure disorders.”  Under the provisions of the legislation, “the U.S. Secretary of Education, in cooperation with the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (is authorized) to issue guidance on how elementary schools and secondary schools can promote seizure safety at school and safely care for students with epilepsy or other seizure disorders.”

— In Oklahoma, Tulsa Public Schools have announced a “no fight zone,” and a “calm rooms” safety initiative.  Under this policy “students can expect to see more “calm rooms” for de-escalation.”  School officials state that “the plan is to stop fights before they start… (and) to have a calm room in every building.”